 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Essenmacher v. Orkin Exterminating Co., No. 06-1578,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by denying a homeowner's motion to vacation arbitration award for extermination company when company presented lay and expert witnesses and submitted a number of documents to counter homeowner's negligence claims. The record was more than sufficient to allow arbitrators to find for company on two of her negligence claims.
|
|||||
| Sall v. Gonzales, No. 05-4357,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(3) to review IJ's determination that alien failed to establish identity and thus failed to show that he, as opposed to someone else, filed for asylum within one year of arrival in U.S., as required by § 1158(a)(2)(B), when determination appeared to be based on routine adverse credibility finding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Masters, No. 05-6832,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by applying enhancement for use of sophisticated means under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) in sentencing defendant for conviction for credit card fraud because, even though individual steps in fraud scheme were not particularly sophisticated, totality of his conduct was carried out used multi-pronged, cross-jurisdictional scheme.
|
|||||
| United States v. McCreary-Redd, No. 05-5382,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Decided , February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and carrying a firearm during such offense, violations of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1), was improper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 as no factual basis was established; it was also unknowing as it was not established that he understood the charge, particularly distribution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pingleton, No. 05-6179,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine was affirmed because the government did not need to offer any evidence that pseudoephedrine was a "list I chemical" because federal law defined it as such, not because the jury had to find it on a case-by-case basis and court did not review credibility of witnesses.
|
|||||
| United States v. Saffore, No. 05-2120,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because the district court considered each of the relevant 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, discussed defendant's criminal history and the location of the drug crime (near a school) and provided a thorough explanation for why it rejected defendant's mitigation arguments.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sanford, Nos. 05-6489/05-6500,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Decided , February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants were convicted of violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846, 841, and 18 U.S.C.S. § 2, their Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the denial of their suppression motion as an officer had probable cause to believe that Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-124 was violated when defendant drove within 10 feet of the back of a truck on the interstate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
